Target Brands, Inc. v Wei Lou Chang c/o DWB Co. Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1406001566832
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jodi A. DeSchane of Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Wei Lou Chang c/o DWB Co. Ltd (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <inform-target.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 26, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 27, 2014.
On June 26, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <inform-target.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 27, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 17, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@inform-target.com. Also on June 27, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 28, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant holds numerous United States trademark registrations for TARGET and variations thereof. Complainant also holds registrations for the TARGET mark in many other countries including China. Through its parent corporation’s licensee, Complainant operates a large chain of retail stores and is active in electronic commerce. Since 2012, Complainant has operated an official guest satisfaction survey and sweepstakes site using the domain name <informtarget.com>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <inform‑target.com> in April 2013. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain and deceive consumers into believing that they have arrived at Complainant’s official guest satisfaction survey site. Complainant states that it has not licensed Respondent to use its mark and that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark, but for the addition of the generic term “inform,” the hyphen, and the “.com” top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity with Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Robertson, FA 1435410 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2012) (finding <callstatefarm.com> confusingly similar to STATE FARM); Target Brands, Inc. v. Geose, FA1103218 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2007) (finding <target‑store.info> confusingly similar to TARGET); Target Brands, Inc. v. Webmaster, FA 250003 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2004) (finding <shoptarget.com> confusingly similar to TARGET). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and is nearly identical to the domain name used by Complainant for its survey site. It was registered without authorization and for the purpose of profiting by confusion with Complainant. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s registration of a domain name that closely mimics an existing domain name used by Complainant, and the use of that domain name for a website that seeks to profit from confusion with Complainant, are indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <inform-target.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 29, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page